DETAILED ACTION
This is Final Office Action replaces the previous Final Office Action mailed on June 23, 2026, and is issued in response to amendment filed on April 9, 2026, and the Subject Matter Eligibility Declaration “SMED” filed on April 9, 2026. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims do not recite abstract ideas under 35 USC § 101 because the claims are directed to a unique ordered combination of technical elements that provides a master ingestion and data automation system, which creates a corporate identity number in real time within a few hours of receiving a new business registration. (response 4/9/2026, pages 7-11). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “create a corporate identity number in real time within a few hours of receiving a new business registration” is recited at a high level of generality and merely describes a desired result implemented using generic computer components. Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim does not recite how the corporate identify number is created, nor does it describe any specific algorithm, data structure, or technological improvement that enables the creation of the corporate identity number in real time within a few hours of receiving a new business registration. Further, under step 2B, merely creating a corporate identity number does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activities. Therefore, the claim rejections - 35 USC § 101 are maintained as clearly addressed below.
Some of the basics of requirements the examiner must verify for all declarations under 37 CFR 1.132 are as follows:
• Timeliness – See §MPEP 716.01. A declaration must be submitted prior to final rejection and before an appeal is filed. So, the applicant satisfies this requirement.
• Attestations – See MPEP §§716 and 717.01(c)(II). include the required acknowledgements. Acknowledgement of penalties/the declaration must acknowledge that willful false statements are punishable and may jeopardize the validity of the application or any resulting patent. These acknowledgements appear on the last page of the declaration, so this requirement is satisfied.
• Signatures – See MPEP §§716 and 717.01(c). The declaration must be signed by a person who has knowledge of the facts asserted. In this case, the declaration is signed by the inventor, so this requirement is satisfied. Since all of the above formal requirements are met, the SMED must be considered by the examiner on the merits. However, it is the Examiner’s conclusion that the evidence provided in the SMED is insufficient to establish eligibility under 35 U.S.C 101 for the following reasons:
Pages 1-4 of the declaration consist primarily of the inventor’s background and resume. This information does not provide evidence relevant to overcoming the 101 rejection.
On pages 5-6, the declaration states that the SMED is submitted for five reasons:
a) The claimed invention “cannot be practically performed in the human mind”
b) The additional elements are not well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC), and the elements, considered as a whole, constitute an “unconventional arrangement”
c) The additional elements “provide an improvement to the functioning of the computer”
d) The additional elements improve “computational performance, learning, storage, data sets and structures”
e) The claimed improvement addresses a “technical problem” in computer science.
With respect to a) the declaration appears to address this issue on pages 6-9. However, the only evidence provided consists of the inventor’s the statements that the claimed invention enables capabilities beyond human capacity. These are merely conclusory statements. The remainder of the discussion largely recites the claim language and repeats portions of the specification or explains how the applicant intends the invention to operate. This does not address the examiner’s findings in the 101 rejection regarding the specific claim limitations that are considered capable of being performed mentally.
With respect to b) the declaration asserts that the claimed invention is unconventional. Although it includes some comparison with an existing third-party product, it does not explain which additional claim elements are not WURC or address the examiner’s specific findings in the 101 rejection. Instead, the declaration merely concludes that the invention is unconventional because it differs from TAMR in its “approach”, “focus”, and “foundation” without addressing those distinctions to the claimed limitations.
With respect to c), d), and e), these arguments are closely related and are discussed primarily on pages 12-19. However, the declaration again consists largely of conclusory statement asserting that the invention is an improvement while extensively repeating the claim language. The closest attempt to provide supporting evidence appears on pages 18-19, where the declaration states that the present invention solves problems in corporate identity number creation by using a “unique process and system.” However, the declaration does not identify which specific claim limitations or additional elements provide that improvement. Instead, it broadly asserts that the invention, as disclosed, is an improvement without explaining how the claimed features overcome the 101 rejection or why the particular claim limitations represent a technological improvement. Furthermore, the declaration does not provide evidence demonstrating what hardware, operations, or claim elements are “unique” or explain why they are unique. (Please see MPEP 716.01(c)) Accordingly, the rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 101 are maintained.
Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Consequently, the art rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental process without significantly more. The claims recite “a virtual machine: a memory for storing a set of instructions for the virtual machine; a plurality of databases, wherein the virtual machine to configure…receives the incoming files, invokes a loader to decompose JSON records, … collecting and/or creating at least one cluster…, collecting data and capturing insights, retrieves all of the data from said staging tables…and publishes output decisions from said evaluation and decisioning module in real time within a few hours”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps can be performed manually in human mind. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental processes. See October Update at Section I(C)(ii). Thus, the limitations recite concepts that fall into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas.
ANALYSIS under Revised Guidance of 2019 PEG:
Statutory Category:
The claims 1-19 are directed to one of the four statutory category (claims 1-9 a system or machine, claim 10-18 a method or a process, and claim 19 a non-transitory computer readable storage media).
Step 2A – Prong 1: Is there a Judicial Exception (e.g. abstract idea)? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 1 recites, at its core, the limitations directed to collecting legal entities, names, addresses, contract information, employer information, and business classifications, organizing and clustering business records; and deciding which information to publish. These activities resemble data management and business information processing that humans have traditionally performed and, therefore, can be characterized as methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the claim recites collecting data, creating clusters, capturing insights, determining which data to publish, and publishing results. These limitations can be characterized as observations, evaluations, judgements, and classifications that can be performed mentally or with pen and paper, at least conceptually. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under step 2A, prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2: Is the abstract idea integrated into a practical application? (See MPEP§§2106.04(II)(A)(2), 2106.04(d)). To pass Prong 2, the claim must apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way (e.g., by improving computer functionality or another technology).
Claim 1 recites additional elements such as a virtual machine, memory storing instructions, a plurality of databases, recognizer engines, loader, collection services engine, an evaluation and decisioning module, and publisher module. However, these additional elements appear to be recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not specify how the clustering is technically performed, nor does it recite a particular clustering algorithm, a specific database architectures, a specialized virtual machine configuration, an improvement to computer functionality, an improvement to database storage or retrieval techniques. Further, the limitation “without storing said data redundantly” merely states a desired result and does not explain how redundancy is avoided. Similarly, the limitation “publishes output decisions in real time within a few hours” merely recites a performance objective and does not provide a technical mechanism for achieving that result. Therefore, the claim merely uses generic computer components as tools to implement the abstract idea rather than integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim fails to satisfy step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B: significantly more or amounting to an incentive concept. (See MPEP§2106.05).
Claim 1 recites additional elements such as virtual machine, memory, databases, ingestion module, recognizer engines, loader, publisher. These are conventional computer components. Further, the claim does not appear to recite a non-conventional database structure, a specialized data indexing scheme, a novel clustering mechanism, a particular machine architecture, or a technological improvement to computer performance. The claim further recites functional language such as collecting and/or creating clusters, capturing insights, determining which data to publish, and publishing output decisions. These limitations merely describe desired results without reciting a specific technological solution for achieving those results. Consequently, the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activities. Accordingly, the claim fails under step 2B because the mere implementation of the abstract idea on a generic computer does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 2 recites that incoming files are batch files, which is an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe and evaluate to determine if incoming files are batch files.
Claim 3 recites representing ingested and cluster data by entries in an ingestion journal, which is an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe and evaluate to capture properties of ingested and cluster data in journal entries.
Claim 4 recites additional elements “GKE cluster” and “python API”, which are high-level recitations of generic computer components and functions that represent mere instructions to apply on a computer.
Claim 5 recites various services included in the collection services engine, which is an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe and evaluate to perform a group of common services.
Claim 6 recites storing processed data in staging tables in a repository, which qualifies as “iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, and is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claim 7 recites updating cluster data based on changes in clustering properties, which is an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally observe and evaluate to update those clusters impacted by changes in clustering properties.
Claim 8 recites receiving data from various data services, which qualifies as “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”, and is recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Claim 9 recites publishing processed data after various steps, each of which is an abstract idea as a mental process. One can mentally evaluate and judge to determine whether the processed data is ready to be published.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected due to the similar analysis of claim 1. Claims 11-18 are similar analysis of claims 2-8 and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element in claims 11-18 represent a further mental process step. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer component, then it falls within the “mental processes” group of abstract ideas. Each additional step is considered an abstract idea (mental process step) and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. An additional abstract idea (mental process step) is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 1-19 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mankad et al. (US 12164541 B2) disclose multi-cluster database management system.
Khanuja et al. (US 11907167 B2) disclose multi-cluster database management services.
Reiner et al. (US 20180004826 A1) disclose ingestion manager for analytics platform.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH B THAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4029. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 7-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HANH B THAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights